AMASRA: 2.5 Section 3. Certain ancient monuments, etc., deemed to be of national importance.

2.5 Certain ancient monuments, etc., deemed to be of national importance

2.5.1 Bare Act Text:

ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND REMAINS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE

3. Certain ancient monuments, etc., deemed to be of national importance.―All ancient and historical monuments and all archaeological sites and remains which have been declared by the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act, 1951 (71 of 1951), or by section 126 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956), to be of national importance shall be deemed to be ancient and historical monuments or archaeological sites and remains declared to be of national importance for the purposes of this Act.

2.5.2 Explanation:

Section 3 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 is a cornerstone provision that automatically declares specific ancient monuments and archaeological sites listed in the Act’s schedule as being of national importance.[1] It’s like Bharat’s official stamp of pride, ensuring treasures like the Ajanta Caves, Sanchi Stupa, or Red Fort are recognized as cultural icons without further debate. This clause integrates monuments and sites previously declared under earlier laws, such as the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act, 1951, into the 1958 Act’s protective framework. It eliminates bureaucratic hurdles by deeming these sites nationally significant, ensuring they receive the highest level of legal protection, including restrictions on construction, excavation, or misuse, as outlined in later sections.

Bharatiya courts have interpreted Section 3 as a mandate for proactive preservation. The Delhi High Court emphasized that monuments listed under Section 3 are part of Bharat’s collective heritage, and their protection is a public duty.[2] The Supreme Court had clarified that the declaration of national importance imposes strict obligations on the state to prevent encroachments or damage, reinforcing the clause’s role in safeguarding Bharat’s cultural identity.[3] These rulings underscore that Section 3 is not just a formality but a binding commitment to preserve heritage for future generations, making it accessible to non-legal audiences as a promise to protect Bharat’s historical gems.

Section 3 is underpinned by several legal doctrines, some explicitly recognized by the judiciary, that shape its role in heritage protection:

Cultural Heritage Doctrine: This doctrine, upheld in cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India concerning the Taj Mahal, recognizes monuments as integral to Bharat’s cultural identity.[4] Section 3 reflects this by prioritizing scheduled sites as national treasures, ensuring their preservation reflects Bharat’s historical narrative.

Public Trust Doctrine: Courts have affirmed that the state holds scheduled monuments in trust for the public. Section 3 embodies this by mandating protection for public benefit, ensuring access and preservation for all citizens.[5]

Doctrine of Statutory Continuity: This doctrine ensures legal frameworks transition smoothly.[6] Section 3 carries forward sites from the 1951 Act, maintaining consistent protection without disruption, a principle courts have upheld to avoid legal gaps.

Preventive Protection Doctrine: This doctrine emphasizes proactive measures to prevent damage to monuments. Section 3’s automatic declaration ensures immediate safeguards, aligning with court directives to prioritize heritage over development.

These doctrines make Section 3 a robust tool, blending legal obligation with cultural pride, ensuring monuments like the Qutub Minar remain vibrant symbols of Bharat’s past.

References:

[1] Biji Rajesh Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors, [(2019) 12 DEL CK 0176]

[2] Archaeological Survey of India v. Narender Anand, Delhi High Court in FAO (OS) 414/2002, WP CW 2635/2002, Dt. 23.07.2004 available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1875343/, Last visited on Dt. 18.07.2025

[3] Rajeev Mankotia v. Secretary to the President of India, [1997 (10) SCC 441]

[4] M. C. Mehta V. Union of India, [1997 AIR SCW 552]

[5] Archaeological Survey of India v. Narender Anand [AIR 2012 SC (CIVIL) 871]

[6] Union of India v. Harbhajan Singh Dhillon [AIR1972SC1061]